Papers I Wrote

Friday, February 28, 2014

[Originally submitted December 2010. This is a minor thesis I wrote. I have copied and pasted below, but some of the formatting got a bit mangled copying from Microsoft Word to blogger, and the version on Google Documents can be viewed here. Although I've chosen to post this online for whatever it may or may not be worth to anyone, it should be treated with caution. It is a severely flawed study for all the reasons mentioned in the limitations section (Chapter 7) as well as the criticisms pointed out by the reviewers at the end.]

Abstract

This study tested two groups of L1
Japanese speakers on perception of /r/ and /l/ phonemes.One group had never lived outside of
Japan.The other group was living in
Melbourne, Australia at the time of the testing.Both groups were tested on three different
tasks: identification of /r/ and /l/ phonemes, discrimination of same and
different /r/ and /l/ phonemes, and identification of correct English phonotactic
phoneme sequences using /r/ and /l/. The
two groups were then compared against each other to see if there was any
advantage for the group living in Melbourne.The results showed that the two groups were similar on identification
tasks and phonotactic tasks.However the
group living in Melbourne scored significantly higher for discriminating
between same and different sounds.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Literature Review……………………………………………………….....7

1.1 General Literature on Second Language Speech Perception………………………...7

1.2Japanese Perception of /r/ and /l/…………………………………………………......9

1.2.1 Liquid Consonants in English and Japanese……………………………………….9

1.2.1.1English /l/……………………………………………………………………..…10

1.2.1.2 English /r/………………………………………………………………………11

1.2.1.3 Japanese liquid features……………………………………………………….12

1.2.2 Research on Japanese perception of /r/ and /l/…………………………………..13

1.2.2.1 Japanese perception of /r/ and /l/ in consonant clusters………………………..18

1.2.2.2 English phonotactics with /r/ and /l/ and perception…………………………20

5.6. Correlations between perception accuracy and
length of residence (Melbourne group only).....................................................................................................................71

It is well documented that second
language learners have trouble perceiving sounds that do not occur in their
native language (Munro & Bohn, 2007).Since native speakers presumably have the same auditory capabilities as
non-native speakers, accounting for this difference in perception creates a
challenge for linguists.

The ability to perceive the
difference between non-native sounds appears to be lost fairly early in
childhood (Best & Tyler, 2006).

By observing the interest of infants in different sounds (measured
through the vigorousness of the infants sucking) we know that babies are born
with the ability to distinguish between all sorts of sounds that their parents
can not.For example English learning
infants under the age of six months can distinguish phonemes used in Czech,
Hindi and Inslekampx (a Native American language) that English speaking adults,
even with training or university coursework, cannot distinguish (Pinker, 1994).

However by six months the babies are
beginning to organize sounds into phonemes according to the categories of their
native language.By ten months they do
not distinguish between phonemes that do not occur in their native language
(Pinker, 1994.)By the age of 8,
children show adult like perception of both native and non-native speech (Best
et al., 2006).

There are two different models which
are often used to explain second language speech perception: Flege’s Speech
Learning Model and Best’s Perceptual Assimilation Model (Munro et al., 2007).The Speech Learning Model (SLM), developed by
Flege in 1995, suggests that learners will tend to assimilate foreign sounds to
the phonetic categories of their native language, if the sounds are similar
enough to allow assimilation.Therefore
according to the SLM, sounds that are identical in the two languages present no
problem to the learner.As far as new
sound contrasts go, it is relatively easy for the learner to acquire new
categories for sounds that are phonetically dissimilar from anything in the
native language, because there is no problem of L1 interference (Hazan,
Sennema, Iba, & Faulkner, 2005).

The Perceptual Assimilation Model
(PAM), developed by Best in 1995, is based on a different theoretical framework
and created for different purposes.(The
SLM was developed for L2 learners actively learning a foreign language, whereas
PAM was developed for naïve listeners (Best et al., 2006).)However PAM makes similar predictions about
non-native speech sounds.According to
the PAM, a non-native sound is either “categorized” (as an example of a
pre-existing phoneme category from the native language), “uncategorized” (if
similar to two or more native categories) or nonassimilable (if it is not
similar to any pre-existing native category) (Hazan et al., 2005).

According to both of these theories,
non-native speakers may still be able to discriminate between two or more
sounds in an L2 if they are sufficiently phonetically dissimilar, and if there
no such category in their L1, such as American English speakers correctly
discriminating between various isiZulu click consonants (Best et al.,
2006).However if two or more foreign
speech sounds have a high degree of similarity, and if this contrast does not
occur in the native language of the learner, and particularly if there is a
native language phonetic category that both foreign sounds could be assimilated
into, an adult learner will have trouble distinguishing between these sounds
(Munro et al., 2007).One often cited
case of just such an issue is the problem Japanese learners of English have
distinguishing between the two English liquid consonants: “r” and “l”.

To better understand this problem,
it is useful to briefly look at how liquid consonants compare in English and
Japanese language, and then look at Japanese perceptions of English liquids.

1.2 Japanese perception of /r/ and /l/

1.1.2 Liquid consonants in English and Japanese

English has two liquid consonant phonemes:
/r/ and /l/.Japanese only has one.This is thought to be the cause of difficulty
Japanese speakers have in perceiving /r/ and /l/ sounds in English.

A liquid consonant is a kind of
consonant in which the airflow is only partially obstructed in the oral cavity
and, unlike stop consonants, air is still allowed to escape through part of the
oral cavity.It is generally described
as an approximant.Unlike fricatives,
there is also no friction created during the constriction phase (Carr, 2008).

1.2.1.1 English /l/

The phoneme of /l/ in English can
vary widely in terms of its articulatory and acoustic realization.It has many different allophones depending on
its position in the syllable.In the
syllable initial position, however, the English /l/ tends to be a lateral
alveolar approximant (Scobbie & Wench, 2003).The /l/ phoneme in English is a lateral
equivalent, meaning that in syllable initial position airflow does not pass
through the center channel of the vocal tract (as in most other phonemes) but
passes around the sides of the tongue blade and out of the vocal tract.In producing an /l/ sound the speaker usually
raises the tongue tip to the alveolar ridge (Roach, 2009).The edges of the tongue blade are then
compressed inward, away from the upper teeth, to create an airway.Because of this, /l/ is a highly sonorous
consonant despite the fact that there is alveolar contact (Scobbie et al.,
2003)./l/ is also always stronger in
the onset position than when it is in the coda (Scobbie et al., 2003).

(Although
the articulation of /l/ can change depending on whether or not it is before
vowels or consonants, such as the “clear l”/ “dark l” distinction (Roach, 2009,
Scobbie et al. 2003) this study will focus only on syllable initial /l/).

1.2.1.2 English /r/

The other liquid phoneme in English
is the /r/ approximant.The tip of the
tongue is raised in proximity to the alveolar, but never actually makes contact
(Roach, 2009).

In both cases, the consonant is
voiced, although devoicing can occur when it occurs in a consonant cluster with
an unvoiced consonant (Roach, 2009).

The major acoustic differences
between English /r/ and /l/ are located in variation in the steady-state onset,
and frequency transition of the third formant (F3).Studies have shown that it is based on this
frequency transition that native English speakers differentiate between /r/ and
/l/ sounds (O’Connor, Gerstman, Liberman, Delattre & Cooper, 1957).

1.2.1.3 Japanese liquid features

Japanese has one liquid consonant
phoneme, or at least a consonant that is often referred to as a liquid.(Some phoneticians question whether the
Japanese consonant would be more accurately referred to as a flap (Flege,
Takagi & Mann, 1995).)It is
represented in the Japanese writing system by the symbols ら、り、る、れ、and
ろ.Using the Hepburn writing system, the most
conventional way of converting Japanese sounds into the Roman alphabet, these
sounds are usually written as “ra”, “ri”, “ru”, “re”, and “ro”.(Because the Japanese writing system is based
on a syllabary rather than an alphabet, with the exception of the syllable
final “n” it is impossible to isolate a single consonant on its own.)It is this convention that gives us the “r”
consonant in such well-known Japanese words as “karate”, “samurai”, “Hiroshima,” and others.

In precise phonetic terms, exactly
what this sound is, and how it is articulated, is a matter of some debate.It appears to have some degree of phonotactic
variation.Its pronunciation may vary
depending on whether or not it is word initial (or utterance initial),
depending on which vowels it proceeds, depending on whether or not it is
lengthened for emphasis, and depending on individual variation among
speakers.It has been described as an
apico-alveolar tap (palatalized before /i/ and /y/).Accordingly various phoneticians have
assigned it different values using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) [r],
[ɹ],
[l],[ɾ]or [d]
(Vance, 1987).

However despite these differences in
phonetic transcription, Japanese speakers still consistently assimilate both
English liquid consonants with the Japanese liquid (Ayoma, Flege, Guion, Yamada
& Yamada, 2004).

The exact perceptual relationship
between the English [ɹ]
and [l] and the Japanese liquid is also uncertain.Japanese listeners identify both the English
[ɹ]
and [l] as the Japanese liquid, although it maybe closer to [l] (Guion, Flege,
Yamada & Pruitt, 2000). Flege et al. (1995) write that “Japanese /r/
appears to occupy a position in phonological space that is somewhere between
English /l/, /ɹ
/, and /d/ (and possibly /w/).”

1.2.2 Research on Japanese perception of /r/ and /l/

The fact that Japanese speakers have
had difficulty pronouncing /r/ and /l/ sounds has long been observed
informally.[1]“Difficulties that Japanese … encounter with
the English /l-r/ contrast are so well known as to become a linguistic
stereotype” write Ingram and Park (1998).

However
the first serious linguistic study on the matter was done by Goto (1971).Goto also established for the first time that
perception was just as much of a problem for Japanese speakers as production,
and that listening discrimination test results for Japanese speakers were not
much above chance.This was apparently
contrary to what most people expected at the time.“Now the question is whether or not we
Japanese can distinguish ‘L’ from ‘R’ when it is enunciated by native speakers
of English.Most people have thought
that we could clearly distinguish them since the native teachers would
naturally emphatically differentiate them,” (Goto, 1971.)

Goto also tested the ability of his
participants to discriminate between /r/ and /l/ sounds as either the same or
different.This second test, he said,
was different from the first because it was not testing English ability, just
testing the “ability of auditory discrimination between one syllable and
another,” (Goto, 1971.)

Goto’s participants were too few in
number to establish results with statistical significance, but one an eight
question test, none of his participants achieved accurate discrimination (which
Goto defined as “a score of 8/8, or at least 7/8” (Goto, 1971)).

Since that time many further tests
have also validated this research, as well as showing that the errors of
Japanese speakers are consistently bi-directional.Japanese speakers are just as likely to
misidentify an English /r/ sound as /l/, as the reverse (Flege et al. 1995).

A subsequent study by Miyawaki,
Strange, Verbrugge, Liberman, Jenkins and Fujimura (1975) also showed that when
the frequency values of the first and second format were held constant, and
only the third formant (F3) was changed, American listeners tended to perceive
the changes categorically in terms of /r/ and /l/ sounds depending on the
transition of the F3, whereas the Japanese listeners showed much more random
results.However when the third format
was isolated and just played by itself (a non-speech sound) there was little
difference between Japanese and Americans.The authors concluded that the fact that perception only differed within
speech sounds means that it is the result of linguistic experience and not
auditory function alone.

Also, because the contrast between
/r/ and /l/ is based on spectral cues, it has been argued that the perception
is more difficult for foreigners to acquire than temporal cues such as
voice-onset time (Lively, Pisoni, Yamada, Tohkura, Yamada, 1994).

Much research has been done into how,
and under what conditions, perception is acquired.Many experiments were developed that sought
to create new phonetic categories in the minds of the listener by perceptual
training.A typical example of this is
the study carried out by Bradlow, Pisoni, Yamada and Tohkura in 1997 (which
itself was a replication of several previously published studies with similar
results).They presented Japanese
listeners with an /r/-/l/ minimal pair on a computer screen, and then asked the
Japanese listener to connect the word they heard on the headphones with the
correct orthographic representation on the computer screen.Correct answers were rewarded with a
chime.Wrong answers received a buzzer
signaling an incorrect response, and the test word was repeated until the
correct answer was given.By this
method, the perception of /r/ and /l/ phonemes greatly increased from the
pre-test (65% correct) to the post-test (81% correct).However the participants did not reach native
English level perception, which is near perfect identification of /r/ and /l/
phonemes (Bradlow et al., 1997).Repeated studies have shown that even after intensive training, there is
a limit to how well Japanese speakers on average can be trained to identify /r/
and /l/, particularly in word initial positions, consonant clusters, and
intervocalic positions. (Japanese speakers do somewhat better with word final
/r/ and /l/) (Takagi, 2002).

Outside of training, natural
exposure also seems to play a part in improving perception.For example, a study by MacKain, Best, and
Strange (1981) /r/ and /l/ perception of two groups of Japanese subjects was
tested, one experienced group, which had training in English conversation by
native speakers, and an inexperienced group, which did not have this training.The experienced Japanese subjects showed much
better identification of /r/ and /l/, and were much closer to the American
control subjects, than the inexperienced Japanese learners, although neither
group had had explicit perceptual training outside of exposure to English conversation.

A further study by Flege, Takagi and
Mann (1996) also confirmed that Japanese subjects with English experience did
better on /r/-/l/ perception tests than inexperienced Japanese subjects,
although not quite as well as native speakers.Flege et al. also found an effect of lexical familiarity.Both experienced and inexperienced Japanese
learners were more likely to correctly identify words they were already
familiar with, indicating that previous linguistic experience does indeed play
a role in perception abilities.

Another study (Aoyama et al., 2003) tested
the perception of 16 Japanese adults and 16 Japanese children living in Texas.The participants were tested twice, one year
apart, on their perception of /r/ and /l/.The first test was after the participants had been living in the United States
for an average of 0.5 years, the second test was at an average of 1.6 years
length or residence.It was found that
the perception of the Japanese children improved dramatically between the first
and second test, but the Japanese adults’ perception did not improve significantly.

It should also be noted that,
although these studies deal with average scores, some of them do contain
anomalies where certain individual Japanese speakers perform much higher than
average.Although no research has shown
averages of Japanese speakers obtaining high levels of identification, certain
individuals within these averages sometimes obtain near-native results
(Underbakke, Polka, Gottfried & Strange, 1988).However because few longitudinal studies of
nonnative phonetic perception exist, what causes this individual difference,
whether aptitude or linguistic experience or a combination, is difficult to
determine (Underbakke et al., 1998).

1.2.2.1 Japanese
perception of /r/ and /l/ in consonant clusters

Most of the previous research has
indicated that Japanese speakers will identify /r/ and /l/ sounds less
accurately as initial consonant clusters than as initial single
consonants.This result was shown in
Goto (1971), Mochizuki (1981), Sheldon and Strange (1982), Lively, Logan and
Pisoni. (1993).

In fact, Lively, Logan and Pisoni
(1993) write: “To our knowledge, every experiment that has examined Japanese
listener’s perception of /r/ and /l/ in different phonetic environments has
found that contrasts in initial consonant clusters are the most poorly
identified.”

Many different reasons have been
postulated for this, and it may well be a combination of different reasons.

Japanese listeners often have
difficulty perceiving English consonant clusters in general (Dupoux, Kakehi,
Hirose, Pallier & Mehler, 1999).This
is because the phonotactics of Japanese do not allow consonant clusters.According to Japanese phonotactics, it is
impossible for one consonant to directly follow another consonant without a
vowel in between.(Japanese listeners,
when transcribing English words with consonant clusters, will often insert an
epenthetic vowel between consonants (Dupoux et al., 1999).)

Because Japanese listeners do not
have consonant clusters in their native language, it has been theorized that
this causes them added difficulty in perceiving consonant clusters in English
(Mann, 1986).

Another theory is one put forward by
Sheldon and Strange (1982).When liquids
occur with other consonants, they are usually coarticulated.This results in the sound being different
than it would be in the single state, and may cause a problem to non-native
speakers who have been trained to perceive the sound as a single
consonant.Also the steady-state values
for the third formant (what has been determined as critical for perceiving the
differences between /r/ and /l/ sounds) may not exist.

Also research has shown that /r/ and
/l/ phonemes are identified correctly by Japanese speakers in direct proportion
to their duration./r/ and /l/ phonemes
which occur in the word final position have the longest duration, and are
consequently identified by Japanese speakers with the greatest accuracy.Syllable initial consonant clusters
containing /r/ and /l/ have the shortest duration for the /r/ and /l/ phonemes,
and are consequently identified at the lowest rate of accuracy (Lively et al.,
1994).

1.2.2.2 English
phonotactics with /r/ and /l/ and perception

Within any language there are
certain phoneme combinations that are prohibited independently of articulatory
abilities.The study of what phoneme combinations
are possible and what phoneme combinations are impossible in a certain language
is called phonotactics (Roach, 2009).

Phonotactics are not the same across
all languages.An oft cited example is
the phoneme [ŋ], which in English can appear at the end of words, but does not
occur word or syllable-initially..Vietnamese, however, allows a word initial [ŋ] phoneme (Onishi,
Chambers, & Fisher, 2001).

In
relation to the liquid consonants /l/ and /r/, there are only certain phoneme
combinations that can be followed by the sound /l/ or /r/ in English.With /r/, only the following phoneme
combinations can exist using /r/ as the post initial syllable: /fr/, /gr/, /pr/,
/kr/, /br/, /tr/, /dr/, /ʃr/,
/θr/, /spr/, /skr/ and /str/ (Roach, 2009).

With /l/ as the post initial
syllable, only the following sound combinations can occur: /fl/, /gl/, /pl/, /kl/,
/bl/, /spl/, /skl/ and /sl/ (Roach, 2009).

As
is evident from the list above, there are six phoneme combinations in which
either an “r” or an “l” is permitted, but not both: /sl/, /tr/, /dr/, /ʃr/,
/θr/and /str/ are permitted phoneme combinations in English, but not /sr/, /tl/,
/dl/, /ʃl/,
/θl/, or /stl/.

The exception to this is when the
consonant cluster occurs across a syllable boundary.In this case phoneme combinations which are
phonotactically impossible as word initial sounds can be permissible if they
appear across a syllable, such as the /tl/ sequence sound in “Atlantic” or the
/dl/ sequence in “seedling.”

In cases such as the word “Atlantic”
it is even evident that the phonotactics of English decide how the word is
divided into separate syllables.Although it would have been physically possible from a purely articulatlory
standpoint to put the /tl/ sound as an onset for the second syllable, the rules
of English phonotactics dictate that the syllable is divided between the /t/
and /l/ (Pitt, 1998).

Native speakers are never explicitly
taught the phonotactic rules of their native language, and yet they learn this
knowledge simply through repeated exposure.It appears to be learned as early as nine months, based on studies which
show that infants will listen longer to phonotactically legal syllables
(Jusczyk, Friederici, Wessles, Svenkerud, & Jusczyk, 1993).

With native speakers, furthermore,
it has been shown that intuitive phonotactic knowledge plays a part in
perception.For example in one study native
speakers of English were asked to categorize sounds along an /r/-/l/ continuum
as either /r/ or /l/.Each of these
steps was presented as the second consonant of a two-consonant cluster.Listeners showed a bias towards categorizing
the sounds in favor of phonotactically legal sequences.For example sounds similar to /l/ were
indentified as /r/ when preceded by a /t/ sound, but not when preceded by an
/s/.Although this was not true of every
phonotactic sequence.The consonant /d/
had a minimal effect on perception of /r/ versus /l/, even though it was
phonotactically legal in the case of /r/ and illegal in the case of /l/.It is thought that perhaps this was because
that the /tr/ combination is less frequent than the /dr/ combination (Massaro
& Cohen, 1983.)

The fact that permissible and
impermissible phonotactic sequences influenced native speaker perception of /r/
and /l/ was also further verified in a study by Pitt in 1998.

In
second language learning, phonotactic research on /r/ and /l/ has focused on
the transfer effect from the native language with learners that already have
the /r/ and /l/ contrast in their native language (for example Altenberg,
2005).

However
no previous studies were found testing phonotactic knowledge of /r/ and /l/
consonant clusters among Japanese speakers, or other speakers who did not have
an /r/ and /l/ contrast in their native language.

Chapter 2. This study

The purpose of this present study is
to examine the different perception abilities between Japanese people studying
English in Japan,
and Japanese people living in an English speaking country.This study will test a group of Japanese
speakers currently studying English in Japan,
and a group of Japanese speakers currently living in Melbourne, Australia,
and compare their results.As such, this
will be one of the few studies that uses Australian English as a stimuli to
test Japanese perception of /r/ and /l/ sounds, since most previous published studies
have used American English as the stimuli.(Although there are some notable exceptions, such as Ingram et al.,
1998, which was based in Australia and have used Australian English.)

This
study will test the participants on three separate categories: identification
of /r/ and /l/ sounds, discrimination of same or different sounds using /r/ and
/l/ phonemes, and identification of correct or incorrect English phonotactics
using /r/ and /l/.

This
study will also focus on single Japanese adults who are abroad on either
student or working holiday visas, in contrast to previous studies which have
concentrated on Japanese families living abroad (Aoyama et al., 2003).

Chapter
3. Research hypothesizes

The
following hypothesizes can be made concerning the test results:

1.Based on previous
research, it is hypothesized that participants living in Japan will have a perception of /r/
and /l/ sounds that is about equivalent to chance.

2.Based on the research
which indicates natural exposure to English increases perception of /r/ and /l/
sounds, it is hypothesized that Japanese people living in an English speaking
country will have increased perception of /r/ and /l/ sounds across all
categories.

3.Based on the same
research, it is hypothesized that among Japanese people living in English
speaking countries perception accuracy will correlate positively with length of
residence.

4.Based on the research
which indicates that consonant clusters containing liquid consonants are always
perceived at a lower rate by Japanese listeners than singletons, it is
hypothesized that identification of consonant clusters will be lower for both
groups of participants.

5.Based on the assumption
that indentifying /r/ and /l/ sounds, discrimintation amongst /r/ and /l/
sounds, and perceiving phonotactic clusters using /r/ and /l/ sounds all make
use of overlapping perceptual cognitive abilities, it is hypothesized that there
will be a correlation between different tasks.

Chapter
4. Methodology

4.1
Participants

All the participants in this study were native
Japanese speakers learning English as a second language.The participants were selected from two
different groups.One group was living
in Melbourne, Australia, in which they had a high
degree of naturalistic exposure to English.The other group was studying English in Japan at an English conversation
school, at which they received approximately 45 minutes of English instruction
per week from a native speaker of English.All of the participants had also completed at least 6 years of English
study in the Japanese school system.

4.1.1
Participants residing in Melbourne

Table 1: Total Months Living in an English Speaking Country

Residence

Participant Number

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Standard Deviation

Melbourne

months
in an English speaking country

22

1.00

36.00

13.5455

10.47776

Table 1

All
the participants were between the ages of 18 years and 35.They were all living in Melbourne either on student visas or on
working holidays.

None
of the participants had family residing in Melbourne, and so while living in
Melbourne they had to seek social interaction outside of their family,
presumably giving them amble opportunity for English input (unlike some
previous studies of Japanese adults living abroad which focused on Japanese
adults living with their families (Aoyama et al., 2003)).However the extent to which they actually
interacted with native English speakers, and the extent to which they stayed
within the Japanese expatriate community can not be adequately determined.

As shown in table 1, the average
length of residence in an English speaking country (including countries outside
of Australia that
participants may have previously lived in, such as Canada
or the United States)
was 13.5 months with a maximum of 36 and a minimum of one month.The standard deviation of 10.5 shows that
within these participants there is a high degree of variation in their length
of residence.

4.1.2 Participants
residing in Japan

Table 2: Years
in English Conversation School

Residence

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Japan

Years in English Conversation school

15

.50

13.00

3.0667

3.69781

Table 2

20 participants
were tested in Japan.Of these 20, three participants indicated on
a questionnaire that they had spent time living in an English speaking country,
and their data was excluded, resulting in 17 remaining participants from the Japan
group.These 17 participants were all
drawn from an English conversation school, and so had an active interest in
learning and studying English, but had never lived in an English speaking
country.The age varied widely from 18
to over 60.As shown in table 2, the
average amount of time spent studying at an English conversation school was 3.1
years with a maximum of 13 years and a minimum of 0.5 years.(Two participants, although students at the
Conversation school, did not enter in data for the number of years spent
studying at an English conversation school.)

4.2 Tests

4.2.1 Listening test one

4.2.1.1 Listening test one materials

The first listening test consisted
of 24 word pairs. All the data for the
listening test was recorded in a sound studio by a trained phonetician, who was
a native speaker of Australian English.(See Appendix II for the complete list of words used.)

Because
Australian English is a nonrhotic variety (meaning /r/ phonemes are not
pronounced before consonants or in word final positions) there is no /l-r/
contrast in the coda position in Australian English (Ingram et al., 1998.)Therefore all of the stimuli for this test
consisted of /r/ and /l/ phonemes in word initial position.

Twelve
of these pairs consisted of either an /r/ or an /l/ as the single initial
sound, across a variety of vowel sounds.The remaining twelve words began with a consonant cluster containing
either /r/ or /l/.The consonant
clusters began with /f/, /k/, /g/, /b/, /p/ and /sp/, followed by either an /r/
or an /l/.These particular consonants
were chosen because all of these consonants can be followed by both /r/ and /l/
sounds in English phonotactics, thus it was possible to create real word
minimal pairs using theses consonants in combination with /r/ and /l/.Of the six consonants selected, two word
pairs were created with each.All the
words used were single syllable words.Table 3 summarizes the various words used.

Table 3

Minimal Pairs (Total
24)

Examples

Singletons (Total 12)

/r/
and /l/ (x12)

right—light

Consonant Clusters
(Total 12)

/fr/
and /fl/ (x2)

/kr/
and /kl/ (x2)

/br/
and /bl/ (x2)

/gr/
and /gl/ (x2)

/pr/
and /pl/ (x2)

/spr/
and /spl/ (x2)

fresh—flesh

crash—clash

brand—bland

grass—glass

pray—play

sprint—splint

Table 3

Twelve
of the 24 word pairs consisted of the same word repeated twice.The remaining twelve words consisted of
minimal pairs in which only the /r/ or /l/ sound differed.

There were four possible different
sound patterns for these word pairs: “/r/-/l/”, “/l/-/r/”, “/r/-/r/”, and
“/l/-/l/”.The word pairs were divided
evenly into these four:six “/l/-/r/”
pairs, six “/r/-/l/” pairs, six “/l/-/l/” pairs and six “/r/-/r/” pairs.Table 4 summarizes these four different patterns.

Table 4

Pattern

/r/-/l/ (x6)

/l/-/r/ (x6)

/l/-/l/ (x6)

/r/-/r/ (x6)

Examples

rake---lake

brand—bland

…

light—right

clash—crash

…

lead—lead

splay—splay

…

red—red

crass—crass

…

Table 4

All
of the words used in this section were real words that could be found in
standard English dictionaries.In cases
where minimal pairs were used, both words were real English words.In cases where the same sound was repeated
twice (“/r/-/r/” and “/l/-/l/” patterns) the corresponding minimal pair word,
even though not used, would have been a real English word.Wherever possible high frequency words were
chosen over low frequency words.

Once
all the word pairs had been recorded, the order of the pairs was randomized.

4.2.1.2
Task One: Identification of /r/ and /l/ Sounds

The
first task was a standard identification task of /r/ and /l/ phonemes. This is
a standard identification task that has been used by almost all researchers
investigating Japanese identification of /r/ and /l/ over the past forty years(see section 1.2.2).

Each
word pair was played separately for the participants.Participants were instructed to listen to
each word pair, and then depending on what sound they perceived to write down
either an “r” or an “l”.Since each word
pair consisted of two words, participants had to identify two words for every
pair number for a total of 48 different identifications.For example participants were played a sound recording
of the words “right” and “light”, and would have to write down the appropriate
consonant for each word.A sample of the
first task can be seen in table 5.

Table 5: Task One:
Example

Please listen to the following word
pairs.For each word, write down
whether you hear an “r” or an “l” sound.

これから発音されるペアになっている単語のうち、ＲかＬかをお答えください。

Word 1Word 2

1.___________________

2.___________________

…

Table 5

4.2.1.3
Task Two: Identification of Same or Different sounds

After
labeling each word in a word pair, participants were asked to circle an “s” if
they had thought they had heard the same word twice, and a “d” if they thought
they had heard two different words.

As in Goto’s test (1971), participants
were specifically told that the scores for this column would be marked
separately from the rest of the test, so that they could mark this column
regardless of what labels they had given to each individual word.

Participants had to choose either
“same” or “different” once for each word pair, resulting in a total of 24 same
or different identifications.For
example, if participants heard the words “right” and “light”, then after
identifying each word for as an “r” or “l” they would circle either “s” for
same or “d” for different.A sample of
this is included in table 6.

Table 6: Task Two Example

Please listen to the following word
pairs.For each word, write down
whether you hear an r or an l sound.Then for each pair circle whether thewords you hear are
the same or different.Sometimes the words will be the same,
sometimes the words will be different.

これから発音されるペアになっている単語のうち、ＲかＬかをお答えください。

そして、そのペアになっている単語が同じように聞こえたか、違っていたかのどちらかに○を書き込んでください。

問題によっては同じかもしれませんし、また違うかも知れません。

Word 1Word 2Same or Different

1.___________________S/D

2.___________________S/D

…

Table 6

This second task is drawn directly
from Goto (1971), who determined that labeling sounds was only part of
perception testing. If Japanese participants could tell the difference between
same and different sounds, Goto reasoned, this reflects at ability to
discriminate even if the /r/ and /l/ labels are incorrectly applied.

Since Goto’s original study, many
subsequent studies have been done involving Japanese discrimination between /r/
and /l/ sounds.Although Goto’s
participants showed poor discrimination, other studies have shown that Japanese
speakers can often discriminate sounds that they are unable to identify (Mann,
1986).

Since identification involves not
only accurately perceiving a sound, but matching it to a pre-existing
linguistic category, it has been hypothesized that identification tasks are
more likely to reflect a listener’s linguistic experience and language learning
than a discrimination task, and a discrimination test would simply involve
auditory perception (Ingram et al., 1998).

4.2.2 Listening
test two

4.2.2.1
Materials

The
second listening test consisted of word pairs containing possible and
impossible consonant clusters containing “r” and “l” sounds according to the
rules of English phonotactics.

Using
either “r” or “l” as the second phoneme, five possible consonant clusters (/tr/,
/dr/, /θr/, /str/, and /ʃr/)
were paired against their impossible counterparts (/tl/, /dl/,/θl/,
/stl/, and /ʃl./).

(The
contrast between /sl/ and /sr/ was initially recorded for testing, but not used
because of the difficulty in recording an authentic sounding /sr/ sound that
would not be perceived as /ʃr/.)

Two word pairs were used with each of the five
possible/impossible consonant clusters for a total of ten word pairs.Each word pair consisted of one real English
word paired against an unreal word which differed phonetically only in the /r/
or /l/ sound.All words contained the
/r/ or /l/ consonant cluster as the initial syllable. Examples of the word
pairs used can be seen in table 7.

Table 7

Minimal Pairs (Total
10)

Examples

/tr/-/tl/(x2)

/dr/-/dl/
(x2)

/str/-/stl/
(x2)

/ʃr/-/ʃl/
(x2)

/θr/-/θl/
(x2)

train—tlain

dress—dless

strong—stlong

shrink—shlink

three—thlee

Table 7

These
word pairs were divided into two five “real-unreal” patterns and five
“unreal-real” patterns and then randomized.An example of this pattern is shown in table 8.

Table 8

Pattern

Real—Unreal (x5)

Unreal—Real (x5)

Examples

dress—dless

dleam—dream

Table 8

Because this test contained several
nonsense words using phonotactic sequences not permitted in normal English,
there was a concern that they be produced in a manner not unnatural or overly
affected.In an attempt to guard against
this, a trained phonetician was selected to record the test tokens. As with the
first test, all the words were recorded in a sound studio at the University of Melbourne by a trained phonetician
native speaker of Australian English.(This was the same phonetician that was used for test one.)

Despite this precaution, it is
perhaps difficult even for a trained phonetician to produce unnatural sounds in
a natural sounding way.This maybe a
limitation of this task, and it is further discussed in the “Limitations” section.

4.2.2.2
Test Two Tasks

There
were two tasks for this section.One
consisted of a listening identification task, the other was a short post-test
task to account for lexical familiarity.

4.2.2.2.1
Listening identification task

Participants
were played each word pair separately.Participants were asked to listen to each word pair, and select which of
the two words was a real English word. For example participants would hear
sound recordings of the words “three” and “thlee” and would put an “x” in the
column they was the real word.A sample
of this task can be seen in table 8.

Table 9: Task Example

Please listen to the following word
pairs.Both words will be
different.Each word pair will contain
one real English word, and one unreal English word.Put an X symbol in the column next to the
real English word.If you don’t recognize either of the words,
mark the word that sounds more natural in English.

ペアになっている単語をお聞きください。

どちらも違う単語です。

ひとつは、間違いのない英単語、もうひとつは間違った英単語です。

間違いのない英単語の横にｘ印をお書きください。

もしも、わからない場合はより英語発音に近いものへ印を書き込んでください。

Word 1Word 2

1.___________________

2.___________________

…

Table 9

The
justification for this task does not come directly from the literature, but
rather is based on assumptions of what task will best test the participants
phonotactic knowledge.As mentioned in
section 1.2.2.2, no previous studies have been published testing Japanese
sensitivity to English phonotactics using /r/ and /l/ in consonant
clusters.

Previous
phonotactic perception research has usually used identification tasks, but has focused
on either native speakers (such as Pitt, 1998, and Massaro et al., 1983) or has
focused on the transfer effect from language learners who already have an /r/
and /l/ contrast in their native language (such as Altenberg, 2005) (see
section 1.2.2.2).

Because
Japanese speakers rarely score much above chance on /r/ and /l/ identification
tests in general (Goto, 1971), it was thought that adding phonotactic /r/ and
/l/ identification tests would not increase identification and not produce any
new results.That is, it was thought if
a Japanese person cannot correctly label /r/ and /l/ sounds above chance, and cannot
correctly label /gl/ and /gr/ sounds above chance, then it is unlikely they
will be able to label /tr/ and /tl/ sounds above chance.

(It
is possible that this way of thinking may have too quickly dismissed the
potential value in testing to see if legal and illegal phonotactics changes perception.See the Limitations section (7.2.2) for more
discussion.)

Accuracy
in identification relies on the participants not only accurately perceiving
phonemes, but also matching that perception to an external category.It is possible with learners of English,
however, that some participants are occasionally able to perceive sounds even
if they mislabel them.Therefore a
Japanese speaker who can not accurately label the /r/ and /l/ sounds in a /tr/
and /tl/ minimal pair might still be able to recognize that one constitutes a
natural sounding English consonant cluster, and one does not, particularly if
they have a high level of English exposure.Therefore the decision was made to have the participants simply select
the correct word rather than label /r/ and /l/ phonemes for this section.

4.2.2.2.2 Post perception task

After
completing both listening tests, participants were given a sheet of paper
containing the words from the second listening test.(Only the real words from this listening test
were listed.)Participants were then
asked to circle any words that they did not know.For an example, see table 10.

Table
10: Post perception task example

Here are the words from the listening
test.Please circle any words you
don’t recognize.

これは先に聞いた単語です。わからない単語があったら、○をつけてください。

1.Train

2.Trend

3.Strong

…

Table 10

The
justification for this post perception task comes from information gathered
during the pilot test.In the initial
stages, this test was pilot tested on native speakers of Mandarin. (This is another
language group that has trouble distinguishing between /r/ and /l/ phonemes
(Chen & Fon, 2007).)

During
the pilot test, participants claimed that whether or not they were familiar
with a certain word directly effected their perception of whether or not this
word was being pronounced accurately.

Therefore
in order to account for lexical familiarity as an additional variable, this short
post test task was created.

4.3 Statistical Analyses

All
the statistical analyses were calculated using SPSS.Whenever comparing average scores between the
two residence groups, independent t-tests were used.Whenever comparing the same participants on
different scores, the data was file was split into two different groups by
residence, and two separate dependent samples t-test (or paired samples t-test,
as it is called in the SPSS menu) were run.

Correlations were also run by
splitting the data file by residence, and then calculation for each group separately.Since all of the data used was interval data,
all the correlations run used Pearson.

A more thorough description of which
statistical procedures were used to determine which results is given in the
results section following.

Chapter
5.Results

The results ware presented in various sections.Each section will look first at the group in
Melbourne, than at the group in Japan, and then where appropriate compare the
two groups.

The first section
is the average correct for the identification task as a whole (5.1.1).The identification task is then divided into
the singleton tokens, which are examined in their own subsection (5.1.2) and
the consonant cluster tokens, which are also examined in their own subsection
(5.1.3).The next section compares
singletons and consonant cluster average scores (5.1.4).This is followed by an analysis of the
discrimination task (5.2), and the phonotactic task (5.3).Section 5.4 looks at the effect of known
versus unknown words on the phonotactic task, section 5.5 looks at correlations
between tasks, and section 5.6 looks at the correlation between accuracy on all
tasks and the participants length of residence.

5.1.
Listening test 1, Task 1: Identification of /r/ and /l/

5.1.1
Total scores

Using
SPSS, mean averages were calculated for each group.The mean average was then divided against the
total number of possible correct answers for an accuracy percentage.Independent t-tests were also conducted to
see if there were any significant differences between groups.The results are summarized in table 11.

Table 11: Total
Correct for the First Listening Test (out of 48)

Residence

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Melbourne

Total correct

22

20.00

35.00

27.7727

4.78024

Japan

Total correct

17

22.00

33.00

27.5294

3.41170

Table 11

Out of a total possible score of 48,
participants in Melbourne
scored an average of 27.8, with a minimum of 20 correct, and a maximum of 35
correct, resulting in an accuracy of 57.9%.

Participants in Japan scored an average of 27.5,
with a minimum of 22 correct and a maximum of 33.The accuracy percentage was calculated for as
57.3%, also slightly more than chance.

The
two means are highly similar, and a t-test confirmed there was no significant
between the two groups (p>0.05). The
fact that the participants in Japan
scored at about chance supports the first hypothesis, however the fact that
identification does not appear to be greater for the group in Melbourne is contrary to the predictions made
in the second hypothesis.

5.1.2
Singleton scores

This
section looks only at the minimal pairs containing singletons, a subsection of
the total score for test 1.Using SPSS,
the mean accuracy scores for singleton words were calculated.An accuracy percentage was calculated by
dividing the mean score by the number of total possible correct answers.A t-test was also conducted to test to see if
there were any significant differences between the two groups.The results are summarized in Table 12.

Table 12: Number
of Singleton Words Correct (out of 24)

Residence

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Melbourne

Singletons correct

22

10.00

24.00

15.9545

3.38733

Japan

Singletons correct

17

9.00

19.00

14.6471

2.26222

Table 12

Participants in Melbourne averaged 15.95 correct out of 24 or
66.5% accuracy, with a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 24.As a percentage, the accuracy rate was
slightly higher for singleton /r/ and /l/ identification than for the total
score (66.5% compared to 57.9%).

It is worth noting that the maximum
score, 24, represents a score of complete accuracy for the singleton
subsection.This was achieved by only
one participant.This participant may
represent one of the statistical anomalies mentioned by Underbakke et al.
(1988) although the same participant did not do as well on the consonant
cluster sub-section, scoring 11 out of 24.

Participants living in Japan
averaged 14.6 correct out of 24, or 60.8%, with a minimum of 9 and a maximum of
19.Percentage wise, this section was
also higher than their total score (60.8% compared to 57.3%).

An independent t-test showed no
significant difference between the two groups.This was again contrary to the second hypothesis.

5.1.3.
Consonant cluster scores

For
minimal pairs containing consonant clusters, a subset of the scores for test
one, mean scores were calculated using SPSS.These mean scores were then divided against the totals number of correct
possible answers for an accuracy percentage.

After the total consonant cluster
scores were calculated, the consonant clusters were sorted by the initial
consonant variable, and the individual means of each initial consonant were
calculated.The consonant clusters were
then arranged in order from highest to lowest in terms of correct
identification by participants.Paired
samples t-tests were then conducted to determine if the differences between
consonant clusters reached statistical significance.

To
determine if the average consonant cluster accuracy differed significantly,
dependent t-tests were conducted.

Independent t-tests were run to
determine if the group of participants in Melbourne
differed significantly from the group in Japan.The results are summarized in table 13.(Singleton and consonant cluster scores will
be compared in section 5.1.4).

Table 13: Average
Number of Consonant Cluster Words Correct (out of 24)

Residence

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Melbourne

Consonant clusters
correct

22

7.00

19.00

11.7727

3.25037

Japan

Consonant clusters
correct

17

9.00

16.00

12.8824

2.17607

Table 13

Melbourne participants averaged 11.8 out of
24, resulting in an accuracy percentage of 49.2%, or about what would be
expected on pure chance alone.As an
accuracy percentage, consonant clusters were lower than the total score (49.2%
compared to 57.9%).There was a minimum
of 7, and a maximum of 19.

Table 14: Average
Consonant Clusters Correct (out of 4)

Melbourne Group

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

/gl/ or /gr/

22

1.00

4.00

2.6818

1.17053

/pl/ or /pr/

22

.00

4.00

2.3636

1.17698

/fl/ or /fr/

22

.00

4.00

1.9091

1.26901

/bl/ or /br/

22

.00

4.00

1.8636

1.08213

/spl/ or /spr/

22

.00

4.00

1.8182

1.18065

/kl/ or /kr/

22

.00

3.00

1.2273

.68534

Table 14

Within the consonant clusters,
average accuracy varied depending on the initial consonant, resulting in the
following order from highest accuracy to lowest (listed in terms of initial
consonant) /g/ > /p/ > /f/ > /b/ > /sp/ > /k/, as shown in table
14.

To determine whether these
differences reached statistical significance, several paired samples t-tests
were run using SPSS.The results showed
that some differences were significant.The consonant cluster with the highest degree of accuracy, /gl-gr/ was
significantly higher than every other consonant except /pl-pr/.The consonant cluster identified with the
lowest degree of accuracy, /kl-kr/, was significantly lower than every other
consonant except /fr-fl/.

However many of the other consonant
clusters did not differ significantly from each other.For example /fr-fl/ did not differ
significantly from /br-bl/、and
/br-bl/ did not differ signification from /spr-spl/ (p>0.05).

Participants
in Japan
averaged 12.9 out of 24, resulting in an accuracy percentage of 53.8%.As an accuracy percentage, consonant clusters
were lower than the total score, but not by much (53.8% compared to
57.3%).There was a minimum of 9, and a
maximum of 16.

Table 15: Average
Consonant Clusters Correct (out of 4)

Japan Group

Statistics

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

/pl/ -/pr/

/fl/ - /fr/

/gl/ - /gr/

/spl/ - /spr/

/kl/ or /kr/

/bl/ or /br/

17

17

17

17

17

17

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

.00

.00

4.00

4.00

4.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.5294

2.4706

2.3529

2.1765

1.7647

1.6471

1.00733

.71743

.93148

.80896

.90342

.78591

Table 15

Within the consonant clusters,
average accuracy varied depending on the initial consonant, resulting in the
following order from highest accuracy to lowest (listed in terms of initial
consonant) /p/ > /f/ > /g/ > /sp/ > /k/ > /b/, as shown in table
15.

Paired samples t-tests were run to
determine if any of these differences were significant.The results showed that the consonant
clusters identified with the highest accuracy (/pl/-/pr/) differed
significantly from those identified with the lowest accuracy (/bl/-/br/).

An independent t-test between the
two groups confirmed that on the total number of consonant clusters there was
no significant difference between the two groups.Despite expectations that living in the
target community would increase perception, descriptively, the group living in Japan actually scored slightly higher than the
group living in Melbourne
(12.9 as opposed to 11.8).However this
difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05).

Tests on individual consonant
clusters showed that only words containing the initial consonant cluster /k/
differed significantly, the group in Melbourne
scoring an average of 1.8, which was significantly higher than the group in Japan’s
score of 1.2 (t=2.114, df =37, p<0 .05="" span="" style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> 0>None of the other consonant clusters showed
any significant difference between groups.

5.1.4 Comparisons
between singletons and consonant clusters

To determine if the difference between
singleton and consonant cluster scores reached statistical significance, a
paired samples t-test was run for both the group in Melbourne
and the group in Japan.

For the group in Melbourne, the
results showed that singleton tokens were identified at a higher rate than
consonant clusters (15.95 average for singletons as opposed to 11.8 average for
consonant clusters) which reached statistical significance (t=4.411, df=21, p<0 .05="" span="">0>

It is worth noting here that this is
the average difference, and was not true across the board on an individual
level.Four of the Melbourne participants actually scored more
accurately on consonant clusters, and two participants had the same score for
singletons and consonant clusters.

Participants in Japan followed a similar
pattern.On average singleton tokens
were identified correctly at a higher rate than consonant clusters (14.6
compared to 12.9).A paired samples
t-test confirmed that this difference reached significance (t=2.562、df=16, P<0 .05="" span="" style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> 0>

Once again, it is worth noting that
this was not true of every individual.Of the 17 participants, 3 actually scored higher on the consonant
clusters, and 1 had the same score for both singletons and clusters.

On average however, the results of
both groups confirmed hypothesis 4 that perception of consonant clusters would
be lower for both groups.

To
determine the accuracy with which participants identified sounds as the same or
different, the total number of correct answers for each participant was totaled
and then entered into SPSS.Descriptive
statistics analyses were run on SPSS to determine the average number correct
for each group.The results are
summarized in table 16.

Table
16: Discrimination Scores: Same or Different Total (out of 24)

Same or
different Scores

Residence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Total
Scores

Melbourne

22

17.7273

2.20782

13.00

21.00

Japan

17

13.7059

2.17269

10.00

16.00

Singleton
Scores (out of 12)

Singletons

Melbourne

22

9.1818

1.25874

7.00

12.00

Japan

17

7.8824

1.72780

5.00

11.00

Consonant
Cluster Scores (out of 12)

Consonant
Clusters

Melbourne

22

8.5000

1.71131

6.00

12.00

Japan

17

5.8235

1.59041

3.00

8.00

Table 16

Because this task involves
discriminating between two tokens used for test one, the number of questions
for this task equals half the number of questions from the identification
task.Therefore the mean scores between
tasks are not directly comparable.However, as a descriptive statistic, it is possible to compare accuracy
percentages between tasks.To determine
accuracy percentages, the number of correct answers was divided against the
total number of questions.

To determine if there was any
significant difference between the identification of singletons and consonant
clusters, a paired samples t-test was run for each group.

Independent t-tests were then run on
the discrimination tests (on the total scores, as well as the singleton and
consonant cluster sub-sets) to determine if there was any significant
difference between the groups.

For participants in Melbourne, the mean accuracy for identifying
same or different sounds was 17.7 out of 24(with a
minimum score of 13 and a maximum of 21).The accuracy percentage for identifying same or different sounds was
70.8%, which was higher than the 57.9% total score from task 1.As predicted in the literature (Mann, 1986),
this indicates that Japanese speakers can occasionally recognize that there is
a difference between /r/ and /l/ sounds at points even when they mislabel which
is which.

The average accuracy for
discriminating same or different singletons was 9.2, or 76.7%.(As a percent, this was higher than the
singleton task one identification task of 66.5%).Same or different consonant clusters average
accuracy was 8.5, or 70.8%.(This was
higher than the 49.2% for consonant clusters identification task.)

Interestingly enough, despite the
fact that participants labeled singleton /r/ and /l/ sounds more accurately
than consonant clusters in task one, this division was not reflected in
recognizing same or different sounds.The average accuracy of 9.2 for singletons and 8.5 for consonant
clusters was similar, and a paired samples t-test confirmed that the differences
were not significant (p>0.05).

Furthermore, there was one
participant who achieved perfect discrimination on the singleton subset, and
one participant who achieved perfect discrimination on the consonant cluster
subset, although no participant achieved perfect scores on the total.

The mean total accuracy for
participants living in Japan
was 13.7 out of 24, which was 57.1% accuracy.In the case of the Japan
participants, this was roughly equal with their identification of /r/ and/l/
sounds on task one (57.3%).

The average accuracy for
discriminating singletons was 7.9 out of 12, or 65.8% (which was slightly
higher than the 60.8% for the identification task).The consonant cluster discriminating accuracy
was 5.8 out of 12, or 48.3% (as opposed to 53.8% for the identification
task).

Percentage wise, the Japanese group
did not follow the same pattern as the group living in Melbourne.The discrimination task was not more accurate than the identification
task as a total (57.1% compared to 57.3%), and with consonant clusters
discrimination tasks were actually less accurate than identification tasks
(48.3% compared to 53.8%).

Moreover, although the Melbourne
group did not show any significant difference between singletons and consonant
clusters in the discrimination task, a paired samples t-test confirmed that the
participants in Japan discriminated singleton pairs significantly more
accurately than consonant clusters (average 7.9 as opposed to 5.8) (t=3.380,
df=16, p<0 .05="" span="">0>

The group living in Melbourne
discriminated among same or different sounds with greater accuracy than the
group in Japan.This was true of the total score (17.7 to
13.7) as well as the singleton subset (9.2 to 7.9) and the consonant cluster
subset (8.5 to 5.2).Independent t-tests
confirmed that the difference was statistically significant in all 3 cases:
total (t=1.212, df=37, p<0 .05="" and="" clusters="" consonant="" df="37," p="" singleton="" span="" t="4.993,">0>

This result confirms that
discrimination is better among the Melbourne
group.Although perception is not
greater for the group in Melbourne across all
tasks (as was hypothesized in hypothesis 2) this result at least confirms that
discrimination is more accurate for the Melbourne
group.

5.3 Test two: Accuracy
in identifying correct English phonotactics

The second test dealt
with identifying real and unreal words using English phonotactics.

Using SPSS, the mean
average of correct real words identified for each group was calculated.This was then converted into an accuracy
percentage by dividing it against the total number of possible correct answers.

Averages were then calculated for
individual consonant clusters.Paired
samples t-tests were run to determine if the difference between consonant
clusters reached statistical significance.

To determine if there
was any statistical significance between groups, independent t-tests were run
comparing the group in Japan
with the group in Melbourne.The results are summarized in table 17.

Table 17: Identifying
Real or Unreal Words (Out of 10)

Residence

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Real or
Unreal Words

Melbourne

22

7.1364

1.95900

2.00

10.00

Japan

17

7.4118

1.76985

4.00

10.00

Table 17

For participants in Melbourne, the average score for identifying phonotactically
correct English words was 7.14 out of 10, or 71.4% accuracy.

The minimum score for this section
was 2.

The maximum score was 10 out of 10,
which was achieved by two participants.It is notable that this is the only task in which participants achieved
perfect accuracy (although there were subsets of tasks, mentioned above, in
which perfect scores were achieved for the subset.)

Within the different patterns, the
accuracy rate from highest to lowest is as follows: /θr-θl/> /dr-dl/ >
/str-stl/ > /ʃr-ʃl/
> /tr-tl/ as shown in table 18. However paired samples t-tests showed that the
average differences in accuracy between these phoneme sequences were not
statistically significant (p>0.05).There was no phonotactic sequence which was always identified as correct
or incorrect by all of the participants.

The average score for participants
living in Japan
was 7.41, or 74.1% accuracy.Two of the
participants achieved scores of 10 out of 10.For the Japan
group, this was the only section in which any participants achieved perfect
accuracy.

Within the different patterns, the
accuracy rate from highest to lowest is: /θr-θl/>/dr-dl/ >/str-stl/ >/tr-tl/>/ʃr-ʃl/,
as shown in table 19.

Paired samples t-tests showed that
the difference between phoneme sequences reached significance in 4 cases.The phoneme sequence identified with the
highest accuracy as a real English cluster, /θr/, differed significantly from
the two lowest phoneme sequences (/tr/ and / ʃr/).Likewise the phoneme sequence identified as a
real English cluster with the lowest accuracy, /ʃr/, differed significantly from the
3 highest phoneme sequences: /θr/ (already mentioned), /str/, and /tr/,
indicating that participants had the most trouble perceiving the difference
between /ʃr/
and /ʃl/.
As with the group in Melbourne,
there was no phonotactic sequence which was always identified as correct or
incorrect by all of the participants.

Descriptively, this was another case
where the group residing in Japan
actually performed slightly better on average than the group in Melbourne, (7.41 compared
to 7.31), despite not having the same advantages of input.However independent t-tests showed this
difference was not significant.All of
the individual phonemes were also tested, but the results showed no statistical
significance.This result contradicts
hypothesis 2 that the participants in Melbourne
would show superior perception across all tasks.

5.4 Test two: Known
versus unknown words

The total number,
across all participants, was tallied for the following four categories: known
correct words, known incorrect words, unknown correct words, and unknown
incorrect words.Accuracy percentages
were then calculated for known correct and unknown correct words.The results are summarized in table 20.

Table 20CorrectIncorrectTotal

Known

137 (72%)

53 (28%)

190

Unknown

19 (63%)

11 (37%)

30

Table 20

Accuracy percentages for known and
unknown words were also calculated for every participant on an individual
level, and then averaged on SPSS.A
paired samples t-test was run to compare mean accuracy percentages to test for
statistical significance.The results
are summarized in table 21.

Table 21

Melbourne

N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std. Deviation

Known
Correct Percentage

22

25.00

100.00

71.4545

20.93693

Unknown
Correct Percentage

22

.00

100.00

63.2353

45.17124

Table 21

Participants recognized most of the
words used in the phonotactic test.In
fact there were very few words that participants did not know.Four participants recognized all ten words.Nine participants recognized nine words.Seven participants recognized eight
words.One participant recognized seven
words, and one participant recognized six words.There were no participants who recognized
less than six words.

The paired samples t-test showed
that there was no significant difference in accuracy between known and unknown
words (p>0.05).

Despite the subjective feeling of
pilot test participants that lexical knowledge affected accuracy, this was not
born out in the actual results.As a
whole, participants in Melbourne
accurately identified correct phonotactics in 137 out of 190 words that they
knew (72.1%) and 19 out of 30 words that they did not know (63.3%).

Unfortunately, this post-test task
was not given to participants in Japan, so it is not possible to
compare groups on this aspect.

5.5 Correlations between
tasks

Using SPSS, correlations were run to
determine if there was any significant correlations between the various
tasks.Subgroups within tasks were also
correlated.The results are summarized
in table 22.

Table 22: Correlations between tasks

Melbourne

Identification of /r/ and /l/ Sounds

Discrimination of Same and Different /r/ and
/l/ Sounds

Identification of Phonotactics

Identification of /r/ and /l/ Sounds

X

--

--

Discrimination of Same and Different /r/ and
/l/ Sounds

total identification

singleton

identification

consonant cluster identification

X

--

total discrimination

p>0.05

0.524,
p<0 .05="" span="">0>

p>0.05

singleton

discrimination

p>0.05

p>0.05

p>0.05

consonant cluster

discrimination

p>0.05

p>0.05

p>0.05

Identification of Phonotactics

p>0.05

p>0.05

X

Table 22(“X”
represents where a correlation was not run because the variable would have been
correlated with itself.“--“ represents
where a correlation value is not given because the value has already been given
in another column.The value of
correlations which did not reach statistical significance are not given in this
table, and instead only “p>0.05” is written.)

An
analysis of the data showed that the only statistically significant correlation
that emerged was between the singleton /r/ and /l/ identification and the total
number of same and different discriminations (0.524, p<0 .05="" span="" style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> 0>

The results for the group in Japan are
summarized in table 23.

Table 23: Correlations between tasks

Japan Participants

Identification of /r/ and /l/ Sounds

Discrimination of Same and Different /r/ and
/l/ Sounds

Identification of Phonotactics

Identification of /r/ and /l/ Sounds

X

--

--

Discrimination of Same and Different /r/ and
/l/ Sounds

total identification

singleton identification

consonant cluster identification

X

--

total discrimination

0.655,
p<0 .05="" span="">0>

p>0.05

0.627,
p<0 .05="" span="">0>

singleton discrimination

0.679,
p<0 .05="" span="">0>

0.644,
p<0 .05="" span="">0>

p>0.05

consonant cluster discrimination

p>0.05

p>0.05

p>0.05

Identification of Phonotactics

p>0.05

p>0.05

X

Table 23(“X”
represents where a correlation was not run because the variable would have been
correlated with itself.“--“ represents
where a correlation value is not given because the value has already been given
in another column.The value of
correlations which did not reach statistical significance are not given in this
table, and instead only “p>0.05” is written.)

The group in Japan showed
significant positive correlations between total number of correct /r/ and /l/
identifications, and the total number of same and different discriminations
(0.655, p<0 .05="" span="" style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> 0>Various subsets
within tasks also correlated significantly: consonant cluster identification with
total discrimination (0.627, p<0 .05="" and="" discrimination="" identification="" p="" singleton="" span="" total="" with="">0>

The results show partial support for
hypothesis 5 (the hypothesis that different tasks would correlate
positively.)It appears that there is
some correlation between identification and discrimination.There was no correlation between
identification of phonotactics, and other tasks, however.This is possibly because of task effect, and
will be addressed in the discussion section (6.4).

5.6. Correlations between perception accuracy and
length of residence (Melbourne
group only)

Several
correlations were run on SPSS, and the “length of residency” variable was
correlated with all the test scores, and several subsets of variables within
each test.For example, in the /r/ and
/l/ identification task, length of residency was correlated with the total
accuracy, singleton accuracy, consonant cluster accuracy, and accuracy for each
of the various consonant cluster patterns.For the discrimination task, length of residency was correlated with total
accuracy, singleton accuracy, consonant cluster accuracy, and accuracy across
the various consonant cluster patterns.For the phonotactic tasks, length of residence was correlated with total
accuracy in identifying correct English phonotactics, and the accuracy for each
of the various phonotactic patterns.

Length of residence was positively
correlated with accuracy results on perception across all categories, but it
only reached statistical significance for three categories:

1) identifying
total /r/ and /l/ sounds in the first task (0.445, p< 0.05), (id est
participants who had been the longest in Melbourne
longest had higher scores).

These results, although not true of
every task, show a partial validation of hypothesis 3, which hypothesized that length
of residence would correlate positively with perception.

Chapter 6. Discussions

Looking
at the results of the data, it is possible to see the following patterns
emerging:

1) On average,
singletons are identified at a rate higher than consonant clusters,

2). On average,
participants identify correct and incorrect phonotactics using /r/ and /l/
sounds at a higher rate than they can identify /r/ and /l/ phonemes,

3). Based on
group averages, there appears to be no advantage for participants living in
Melbourne in terms of identification tasks, but there is an advantage on
discrimination tasks.However based on
correlation coefficients, it appears that length of residence correlates
positively with identification tasks.

4). Identification
abilities and discrimination abilities appear to correlate with each other

These trends will be discussed in
more detail in the sections that follow.

6.1 Singletons versus
consonant clusters

6.1.1 Identification task

It
was hypothesized that consonant clusters would show the lowest rate of
identification among both groups, as has been shown in every previous
study.On average, this was true among
both groups, and for both groups it was lower than singleton identification at
a level that reached statistical significance.(However, as was previously noted in the results section (5.1.4) on an
individual level not all participants followed the expected pattern.)

Looking at broad averages, it was
interesting to see which consonant clusters were correctly identified.

Although the exact sequence of
consonant cluster identification was not the same for both groups, there were
some similarities.In both groups,
clusters starting with /p/, /f/ and /g/ were identified correctly at the
highest rate, and /k/, /b/ and /sp/ were the lowest.

In terms of the velar consonants
(/g/ and /k/), in both groups /r/ and /l/ sounds were correctly identified with
the voiced velar /g/ at a higher rate than the unvoiced velar /k/.In fact for the group residing in Melbourne, consonant
clusters with /g/ had the highest rate of identification, and consonant
clusters with /k/ had the lowest rate of identification, with t-tests showing
the difference was significant.

Both the liquid consonants /r/ and
/l/ are voiced in singleton contexts and when adjacent to a phonemically voiced
stop.Therefore they may be easier to
perceive when paired with another voiced consonant.However, when paired with an unvoiced
consonant, the /r/ and /l/ phonemes have devoicing, which may have made them
more difficult to perceive.

However this theory is complicated
by looking at the case of bilabial plosives (/p/ and /b/), in which the
opposite pattern occurs.In both groups
/r/ and /l/ sounds with the unvoiced /p/ are identified at a higher rate than
the voiced /b/.If fact for the group
residing in Japan,
consonant clusters with /p/ had the highest rate of identification, and
consonant clusters with /b/ had the lowest rate of identification, with the
difference being statistically significant.

6.1.2 Singletons versus consonant clusters:
Discrimination task

The group living in Japan
discriminated singletons significantly more accurately than consonant
clusters.The group in Melbourne
showed almost no difference in discrimination between singletons and consonant
clusters (and had significantly higher scores than the group in Japan.)This perhaps indicates that the increased
input from living in the target country causes consonant clusters to be
discriminated at the same rate of accuracy as singletons, but not identified
with the same accuracy.

6.2 Phonotactic awareness

Percentagewise,
participants scored much better on the phonotactic awareness section than they
did on any other identification section (71.4% Melbourne
and 74.1% Japan).

Furthermore, two of the Melbourne participants and two of the Japan participants had perfect
scores on the phonotactic awareness section.This is somewhat surprising, since previous research has indicated that
even intensive phonetic training, L1 Japanese speakers never achieve perfect
English L1 native-like perception of /r/ and /l/ sounds (Takagi, 2002).Although within the Melbourne
group there is some indication that length of residence may affect phonotactic
awareness, two sets of perfect scores also occurred in the Japan residence group.

These results could indicate that participants
have some perception of correct and incorrect phonotactic structures using /r/
and /l/ phonemes even if they do not always have the ability to accurately
label /r/ and /l/.

It could also be a result of the
task effect.Because participants were
only asked to judge whether the word was correct or incorrect, this was a
different task than the identification of /r/ and /l/ phonemes in the first
listening test, and the results may not be directly comparable.

Also despite using a trained
phonetician to record the tokens used for this section, it is difficult for a
native speaker to pronounce incorrect phonotactic sequences in a perfectly
natural way.Although the tokens were listened
to by the researcher and judged to be acceptable, the possibility can not be
ruled out that at some level participants may have noticed a less than natural
pronunciation.

Another possible explanation is that
there were just too few test questions for the phonotactic section.Since participants only had to answer ten
questions for this section, fewer than any other section, there is a higher
probability that a participant could get them all correct by chance.A higher number of questions may have produced
a different result.

Finally, it is worth noting that
although some participants did extremely well on this section, some
participants did not.Scores below
chance occurred in three participants in Melbourne
(scores of 2, 3, and 4 out of 10), and one participant in Japan (4 out of 10).

On average, both groups showed a
similarity on which consonant clusters were identified as correct at the
highest levels.The same pattern (/θr/>
/dr/ > /str/) emerged for the top three consonant clusters, and the bottom
two (/tr/ and /ʃr/)
were the same for both groups.This is
interesting, because Pitt (1998) found that for native speakers /t/ was more
likely to influence perception of liquid phonemes than /d/.This would seem to reverse that pattern
(although the difference between /dr/ and /tr/ was not statistically
significant).

6.3 Comparisons between groups

6.3.1 Discrimination and identification tasks

It was hypothesized that the group
living in Melbourne would have more accurate
perception of /l/ and /r/ contrasts than the group living in Japan because
of the greater advantage of input.However this was not true for all categories.In fact in identification tasks the group in Japan
scored slightly better on two categories (identifying consonant clusters,
identifying real or unreal words) although in both of these cases the
differences were slight and did not reach statistical significance.

Only in the same/different
discrimination was there any statistically significant advantage for the group
living in Melbourne.The results show an advantage for the Melbourne group in
discriminating both singleton pairs and consonant clusters.

Because the discrimination task
questions consisted of half the total of the identification questions, the mean
average between identification and discrimination tasks are not directly
comparable on a t-test.(This is an issue
further addressed in the Limitations section (7.2.1).)

However, based on percentages,
participants in Melbourne did better on the
discrimination task than on the identification task, whereas participants in Japan
did not.Participants in Melbourne had an accuracy percentage 12.9% higher on the
discrimination task, whereas participants in Japan had an accuracy percentage
that was 0.2% lower on their discrimination.

Based on this result, it would
appear that residence in a target country creates an advantage for
discrimination, but not for identification.

One possible reason why this might
be is because correct identification involves not only internal perceptual
accuracy, but also matching internal perception to pre-established external
categories.It is possible that the
increase of English input may have sharpened the discrimination ability of
Japanese speakers living in Melbourne,
but without adequate instruction about the differences between /r/ and /l/
sounds their identification abilities did not increase.

In some previous studies, it has
been hypothesized, particularly with Japanese speakers who score below chance,
that they have actually randomized or switched phonetic categories in their
perceptual space and may identify /r/ sounds as /l/ and vice-versa.

It has been suggested that this
could be partly a result of inadequate teaching (Nogita, 2010).Japanese speakers may have the ability to discriminate,
but have not been correctly taught which phoneme labels correspond to which
sounds.

Of the participants in Melbourne, identification
below chance appeared to be more of an issue with the consonant clusters.Two of the Melbourne participants performed below chance
on singleton identification, and twelve performed below chance on consonant
cluster identification.Since the
realization of a phoneme changes in a consonant cluster, it is possible
Japanese speakers have not correct internal representations for /r/ and /l/
sounds as they are pronounced in clusters.

6.3.2 Length of residence variable

A comparison of task one and task
two result would indicate that the group living in the target country has an
advantage for discrimination tasks, but not identification tasks.

However, correlations with length of
residence show the opposite result.Although length of residence correlates positively with both
discrimination and identification tasks, it only reaches significance with
identification tasks (total scores, and singleton scores).

Among other reasons, this
statistical anomaly is probably best explained by the fact that there were a
higher number of possible correct answers for the identification tasks than for
the discrimination tasks.Because of the
way the test was set up, identification and discrimination were tested at the
same time, and two identification task words were used for one discrimination
task.The design of this test had been replicated
from Goto (1971) who also used the same tokens for both the identification and
the discrimination task.Although this
was clearly the most efficient way to accomplish both tasks, it does make it
difficult to compare the results of each task.A further study looking to compare identification versus discrimination
might benefit from having a separate discrimination section that has the same
number of possible correct answers as the identification section.

Correlations between correctly
indentifying English phonotactics and length of residence also did not reach
statistical significance.There are
however some hints in the data that this correlation may be worth investigating
further in future studies.The only two
participants in Melbourne who received perfect scores on identifying correct phonotactics
(ten correct out of ten possible) were also the participants with the longest
length of residence. (One had 36 months
of residence, the highest in the participant sample.The other had 30 months of residence, equal
to the second highest.) It is possible
with a larger sample size, and one that was more evenly distributed among long
term and short term residents, that a statistically significant correlation may
indeed result between length of residence and English phonotactic knowledge.

To this point, it is also possible
that a larger sample size and more evenly distributed participants may result
in statistically significant correlations concerning identifying consonant
clusters and identifying same or different phoneme categories.

6.4 Correlations between tasks

6.4.1 Phonotactic awareness task

The
phonotactic task did not correlate with either of the other two tasks.This may have been the result of the task
effect described above (section 6.2).

6.4.2 Identification and discrimination tasks

In both groups identification and
discrimination appeared to correlate with each other on some level, although
whether this was true only of singleton identification (as in the Melbourne
group) or was true of the total scores (as in the Japan group) differed.This may indicate that the perceptual
abilities used in identifying sounds can also be used to discriminate between
different types of sounds.

Chapter 7. Limitations

7.1 Participants

7.1.１ Control group

Many
studies of Japanese perception have issues of access to balanced groups of
participants, and this study was no exception.

One of the biggest problems was that
there was no control group.Both groups
had more English input than the average Japanese speaker.The group of Japanese speakers living in Melbourne obviously had
the advantage of living in the target country.However the group living in Japan attended a private English
conversation school at their own expense, where they paid tuition for a weekly
45 minute English conversation lesson taught by a native speaker of
English.This level of weekly input
makes them different from the average Japanese speaker living in Japan.

The fact that they are voluntarily
paying for and attending weekly English lessons from a private school means that
their level of motivation to learn English is probably higher than the average
Japanese speaker, and (assuming all the lessons have not gone to waste) their
English level may be slightly higher than average.

It was part of the original design
for this research project to test Japanese students in Japan a public Japanese high school
or University, in order to establish a baseline against which the other two
groups can be measured.Unfortunately it
proved impossible to gain access to students in a public school or University
setting, and this part of the project had to be abandoned.

7.1.2 Participant number

It
was hoped to have at least 20 participants from each group for statistical
reasons.Unfortunately, fewer than the
expected number of participant data arrived from Japan.Because the decision was made to exclude the
data from any participant who had lived in a foreign country, the result was
that the data from only 17 participants was analyzed from the Japan group.

7.1.3 Balanced participants

Also
because of reasons of access, it was not possible to balance out the groups as
evenly as would have been hoped for.Gender was not controlled for as a variable.Age was also not controlled for as a
variable, particularly for the group residing in Japan.Because the group living in Melbourne
was made up entirely of students and working holiday visa holders, the age
range was only from 18 to 35, but the group in Japan had a much wider age
variation.A more ideal pool of
participants would have had a similar age range for both groups.

Also a better study would have
balanced participants more evenly among length of residence.

7.2 Tasks

7.2.1 Discrimination task

As
has already been previously noted (section 6.3.2), using the same tokens for
both the identification and the discrimination tests created problems because
it meant there was only half the amount of possible correct discrimination
answers, and the means scores for these tasks were not directly comparable.

Although it would have meant doubling
the listening test in length, it may have been better to do a separate
discrimination task so that the same amount of discrimination questions were
included as identification questions.

7.2.2 Phonotactic task

As noted in the methodology section,
the idea of doing an /r/ and /l/ identification task with possible and
impossible phonotactics was dismissed as unlikely to produce interesting
results, and replaced by having participants identify real and unreal
words.

This may have been an error in judgment
on the part of the researcher.For one
thing, the difference in tasks made it difficult to compare results between
sections.Secondly, since little previous work has been done on
Japanese perception of phonotactics involving /r/ and /l/ sounds, it was
premature to assume that a simple /r/ and /l/ identification task would yield
no interesting results without first testing it.It is possible, for example, that Japanese
speakers, particularly those with sufficient exposure to English, may have been
more likely to perceive phonotactic correct patterns (such as /tr/) than
incorrect phonotactic patterns (such as /tl/) as had been shown with native
speakers (Pitt, 1998). (Although Pitt’s
test used synthetic speech stimuli.)

It may have been better to first try
and establish if incorrect English phonotactics create any difference in
perception, and then secondly to test and see if Japanese speakers are able to
utilize this knowledge to distinguish between correct and incorrect
phonotactics.

Furthermore, if the phonotactically
possible/ impossible consonant clusters had been included in a simple
identification task, it would have been possible to compare them with the other
consonant clusters

Also, the difficultly of recording
unnatural English phonotactics in a natural sounding way is also an issue, as
has been noted in previous sections.This may be one of the reasons why previous research on phonotactics has
used synthetic speech stimuli which allows direct control of different acoustic
phonetic parameters (Massaro et al., 1983, Pitt, 1998).

7.3 Consistency between groups

There are certain difficulties
experienced in trying to compare groups of participants on two different
continents.In this case, the test was
e-mailed out to colleagues of the researcher in Japan,
while the researcher himself conducted all the tests in Melbourne.

As much as possible care was taken
to make sure that the tests were conducted in the same way.However, a certain amount of control is
relinquished when the test is administered by other people on a different
continent.An example of this is that
the post-test task (designed to account for lexical familiarity) was not given
to participants in Japan
as a result of presumably must have been a communication error.

Also when administrating the test,
it is possible that all sorts of unforeseen variables in the setting or the
personality of the administrator may have influenced the results.

Conclusion

Despite many of the problems with
this study, it is not completely without merit.Among the more interesting results is that listening discrimination of
/r/ and /l/ phonemes increases for participants living in the target country
even though accurate label identification does not.This could perhaps indicate that, for Japanese
people living abroad, the apparent lack of perception is in part an inability
to assign accurate labels to sounds that are perceived.This may indicate an area for English
educators to concentrate on.

References

Altenberg,
E. (2005.) The judgement of consonant clusters in a second language. International
Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 53-80.

Guion,
S., Flege, J., Yamada, R.A., & Pruitt, J. (2000).An investigation of current models of second language speech
perception: The case of Japanese adults’ perception
of English consonants.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107 (5), 2711-2724

Hazan, V., Sennema, A., Iba, M. & Faulkner, A. (2004.)
Effects
of audiovisual perceptual training
on the perception and production of consonants by Japanese learners of English.Speech
Communication, 47, 360-378.

Ingram, J.& Park, S.G.
(1998.) Language, context, and
speaker effects in the identification of English /r/ and /l/ by Japanese and
Korean listeners. Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 103 (2), 1161-1174.

Lively,
S., Logan, J., & Pisoni, D. (1993). Training Japanese listeners to identify
English /r/ and /l/. II: The role of
phonetic environment and talker variability in learning new perceptual categories. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94 (3),

Nogita, A. (2010.) Do Japanese ESL
learners’ pronunciation errors come from inability to articulate or
misconceptions about targets sounds? Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle
of the University
of Victoria, 20,
82-116.

Vance,
T.(1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany:
State University
of New York Press.

Appendix
I. Participant tasks

I. Questionnaire on English Background

1. Number of years studying English in a Japanese
school or Japanese
University
setting___________________

2. Number of years studying English in English conversation school with native
English speakers or private tutoring from an English native speaker
__________________

3. Number of years spent in an English speaking country _____________________

Listening
Task 1:

Please
listen to the following word pairs.For each word, write down whether you hear an r or an l sound.Then for each pair circle whether the words
you hear are the same or different.Sometimes the words will be the same, sometimes the words will be
different.

これから発音されるペアになっている単語のうち、ＲかＬかをお答えください。

そして、そのペアになっている単語が同じように聞こえたか、違っていたかのどちらかに○を書き込んでください。

問題によっては同じかもしれませんし、また違うかも知れません。

Word 1Word 2Same or Different

1.___________________S /D

2.___________________S /D

3.___________________S /D

4.___________________S /D

5.___________________S /D

6.___________________S /D

7.___________________S /D

8.___________________S /D

9.___________________S /D

10.___________________S /D

11.___________________S /D

12.___________________S /D

13___________________S /D

14.___________________S /D

15.___________________S /D

16.___________________S /D

17.___________________S /D

18.___________________S /D

19.___________________S /D

20.___________________S /D

21.___________________S /D

22.___________________S /D

23.___________________S /D

24.___________________S /D

Listening
Task 2:

Please
listen to the following word pairs.Both
words will be different.Each word pair
will contain one real English word, and one unreal English word.Put an X symbol in the column next to the
real English word.If you don’t
recognize either of the words, mark the word that sounds more natural in
English.

Also
mark your confidence in your choice.1
is the lowest, 3 is the highest.

ペアになっている単語をお聞きください。

どちらも違う単語です。

ひとつは、間違いのない英単語、もうひとつは間違った英単語です。

間違いのない英単語の横にｘ印をお書きください。

もしも、わからない場合はより英語発音に近いものへ印を書き込んでください。

Word 1Word 2

1.
___________________

2.
___________________

3.
___________________

4.
___________________

5.
___________________

6.
___________________

7.
___________________

8.
___________________

9.
___________________

10.___________________

Here
are the words from the listening test.Please circle any words you don’t recognize.

これは先に聞いた単語です。わからない単語があったら、○をつけてください。

1.
Train

2.
Trend

3.
Strong

4.
Strand

5.
Dress

6.
Dream

7.
Three

8.
Thrill

9.
Shrink

10.
Shrimp

Appendix
II. List of tokens(before
randomization)

Test
1

1

Pattern:
L—R

Light—Right

2

Pattern:
R—R

Red—Red

3

Pattern:
L—L

Lead
---Lead

4

Pattern:
R—L

Root---Loot

5

Pattern:
L—R

Load---Road

6

Pattern:
R—R

Reek—Reek

7

Pattern:
L—L

Low—Low

8

Pattern:
R—L

Ray---Lay

9

Pattern:
L—R

Lot—Rot

10

Pattern:
R—R

Rim---Rim

11

Pattern:
L—L

Laid---Laid

12

Pattern:
R—L

Rock—Lock

13

Pattern:
L---R

Flight—Fright

14

Pattern:
R---R

Fresh—Fresh

15

Pattern:
L---L

Bleach---Bleach

16

Patter:
R—L

Brand---Bland

17

Patter:
L---R

Clash---Crash

18

Pattern
R---R

Crass---Crass

19

Pattern
L---L

Splay---Splay

20

Pattern
R—L

Sprint---Splint

21

Pattern
L---R

Play---Pray

22

Pattern:
R---R

Prank---Prank

23

Pattern:
L---L

Glass---Glass

24

Pattern:
R---L

Grow---Glow

Test
2

T1

Pattern:R—L,
real—unreal

Train---Tlain

T2

Pattern:
L—R, unreal—real

Tlend---Trend

T3

Pattern:
R—L real—unreal

Strong---Stlong

T4

Pattern:
L—R, unreal—real

Stland---Strand

T5

Pattern:
R—L, real—unreal

Dress---Dless

T6

Pattern:
L—R, unreal—real

Dleam---Dream

T7

Pattern:
R—L, real—unreal

Three—Thlee

T8

Pattern:
L—R, unreal—real

Thlill---Thrill

T9

Pattern:
R—L, real—unreal

Shrink---Shlink

T10

Pattern:
L—R, unreal—real

Shlimp---Shrimp

[1]The US War Department made use of
this in 1942 with their pamphlet “How to Spot a Jap” (Caniff, 1942).

The
thesis reports on a study of two groups of Japanese L1 speakers and
their ability to perceive and identify /r/ and /l/ phonemes in English,
using a variety of tests. One group were living in Melbourne, the other
had never lived outside of Japan. The hypothesis tested was that the
Melbourne-resident group would demonstrate better ability to
discriminate between and identify these two phonemes of English, than
the Japan-resident group.

OverallThe structure of the thesis
is a standard experimental report. The candidate’s written expression
is adequate on the whole, although poorly structured in parts. Chs 2 and
3 consist of around a single page each. There are numerous single-sentence paragraphs. Some paragraphs are broken incorrectly, or inadequately foreshadowed. There
are many typos, the tables and the thesis as a whole are poorly
formatted making it difficult to read in places. The tables reporting
results consistently lack means reported as percentages, making it
difficult to interpret the results and compare across tasks. There
are errors or inadequacies in the reporting of the literature. For
instance, on p. 19 the candidate claims that ‘According to Japanese
phonotactics, it is impossible for one consonant to directly follow
another consonant without a vowel in between’. Some claims (like this one) are unsupported by reference to the literature. Terminology
is used incorrectly; e.g. on p. 20: ‘With /r/, only the following
phoneme combinations can exist using /r/ as the post initial syllable…’

The
candidate refers to two theoretical models of second language
perception: Flege’s Speech Learning Model and Best’s Perceptual
Assimilation Model. But there is very little in the discussion of the
results which discusses their relevance for these models.

Specific pointsThe
Melbourne-resident group consists of speakers with a very wide range of
residence duration, between 1 and 36 months. It strikes me that
participants with this degree of residence variation may not be
comparable. How different would a participant of 1 month’s residence be
from a Japan-resident participant?

In addition, the
Japan-resident participants have an even wider range for years of
English conversation school exposure, between 6 months and 13 years.
Both problems were noted in the ‘limitations’ section.

It was
not clear to me whether there was any attempt to control for word
frequency or familiarity effects. How familiar would the average L2
English speaker be with words such as ‘flesh’, ‘bland’, ‘splay’ and
‘splint’?? Why were participants not pre-tested on word familiarity?

Clearly the candidate worked hard to design and implement the study,
and went to the trouble of arranging testing in Japan with a colleague.
He appears to understand the methodology of this kind of research, and
the study itself is potentially of interest to researchers in this
field, although I find the results rather underwhelming or even
contradictory and apparently lacking a clear explanation in places.

Examiner 2The
thesis started out with a thorough review of the literature, had a
relatively good coverage of the results with some good reasoning, but
petered out toward the end. There was a lack of interpretation of the
results, and in fact some of the time spent offering limitations of the
study should actually have been spent reflecting on what the results
meant, and what the implications are. For example, how does this study
relate to the theoretical models described in the literature review? The
last sentence of the thesis hints at an implication of the work, but
the reader should not be left wondering why else the work is important.

Some specific comments:A
lot of work went into the project, including carrying out a pilot
study. However, I was surprised to read about the pilot study in the
results section, this should have been addressed in the methodology.

The
thesis was very hard to read in parts due to expression, and the
formatting of tables was especially challenging. I suggest not using
double-spacing in a table, and never having a table cross two pages.
Additionally, almost every table had a heading above and below it.

In section 1.1.2, the discussion of what liquid consonants are should be reversed (paragraph 1 should go before paragraph 2).

There
was some inconsistency with which materials were put in the appendix
and which stayed in the thesis. That is, /l/ and /r/ words were
relegated to the appendix while clusters were shown in Table 3. Both
should be in the same place, preferably in the thesis.

The results section had too much repetition. Time and space should have been saved for the discussion/ conclusion.

The
start of chapter 3 has a good summary of the research hypotheses. Most
of these points are based on previous research, and the references
should have been listed again.

Section 4.1. I was left wondering
about the Japanese participants’ exposure to rhotic varieties of English
– that is, are they exposed to a variety of English which effectively
has more /r/ sounds than Australian English?

p.58 “unreal words” is a strange term - should probably be changed to “nonsense words”